I have no intention of answering this claim. I hope Dr. Pitman will take care of this. My purpose is limited to presenting my own views about this issue. Dr, Buchholz further argues:

Here is My Humble Opinion. I agree: Intelligent design is not scientifically testable in the laboratory. Does this mean that evolution is my only reasonable alternative? I think not, because the major claim of the theory of evolution is not testable either! I have Darwin's The Origin of Species book in front of me. His major claim deals with his theory of descent with slow modifications through natural selection [p.248].

The Testable Portion of Darwin's Theory. Can this be tested? The defenders of Darwin's theory say Yes, and submit to us the case of bacteria and dogs. Bacteria does mutate, and dogs do evolve over time. This is why we have such a large variety of dogs, from mini pomeranians to large danes. The evidence seems to indicate that all dogs might have had a common ancestor. This aspect of Darwin's theory is not in question, because it is based on observable facts that have been verified ad nauseam. No defender of the theory of Intelligent Design would venture to deny this!

Darwin's Unstestable Major Claim. Does it follow that all major species have a common ancestor as well? Not necessarily, for the simple reason that this major facet of the theory of evolution has never been tested. If it could have been tested, I can guarantee you that evolutionists would have produced the results of such tests a long time ago and the controvery would have ended for good like the flat earth theory which prevailed for long centuries.

The Case of the Flat Earth Theory. Consider what happened with this Flat Earth theory. A few centuries ago both science and religion were in agreement that our planet earth was flat. When Galileo suggested that the earth was not flat, he had to recant in order to save his skin. His new theory gained ascendance when factual evidence began accumulating in his favor. The result is that now, both science and religion are in agreement that the earth is not flat. The verifiable evidence that our planet is not flat is so overwhelming that even the most ignorant jungle dweller has no problem believing that Galileo was right.

How about Darwin's theory of common descent? The scientific community seems to be in agreement that Darwin was right, but over 90 percent of Americans still believe in an Intelligent Designer. How can you explain this? How come the followers of Darwin have failed to convince the American public that Intelligent Design is a loser in spite of their monopoly in the public education arena for so many decades? The simple reason is that the major claim of Darwin's Common Descent of species theory cannot be replicated in the laboratory. This facet of Darwin's theory is not testable. Were it testable, scientists would have produced the evidence a long time ago.

Common Descent or Common Design? All the evidence in defense of Darwin's theory of Common Descent can be explained by the opposing theory of Common Design, or Intelligent Design. If Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, then it follows that Darwin's theory of Common Descent is not a scientific theory either. Both are philosophical explanations for the origin of species. It follows that, for the sake of fairness and consistency, neither should be taught in public schools. If one ot them is allowed, then the opposing view should be allowed as well, since neither position has ever been observed nor replicated in the scientific laboratory.

The Origin of Life dilemma? Darwin seems to have limited his theory to the Origin of Species. Nevertheless, a large number of his followers have attempted to explain the origin of life through natural means as well. This is where the common people have the toughest time accepting this extension of Darwin's theory. If the major claim dealing with the Origin of Species is untestable, then imagine how difficult it is to replicate in the laboratory the emergence of living organisms from non-living, innert matter. It has never been done. But, remember this:

If the day comes when science discovers how to produce a living organism from dirth, then it would be an evidence that life is the result of--Common Descent? No way! But rather Intelligent Design!

This is my humble opinion! What is yours?

Can Science Detect Intelligent Design?

by Sean Pitman

I've made the argument that intelligent activity can indeed be detected via the scientific method. John argues that this is impossible; that science cannot detect intelligent activity at all - at least not when it comes to the potential origin of life. As I see it, this notion is clearly mistaken. Science can detect intelligent activity and scientists do so all the time. Forensic science, for example, is all about the effort to detect deliberate vs. non-deliberate causes. Of course, such deliberate causes are the result of human intelligence and are therefore defined as "natural".

However, the creations of some humans are beyond the capabilities of other humans. In this sense, such creations are "above" the creative capabilities and even the comprehension of others. If a particular creation is above my natural capabilities to create myself or understand, is it not in a way "supernatural" relative to my own position? Can what seems supernatural from one perspective be perfectly "natural" from another perspective? Now, does it mean that just because some creation is beyond my own abilities that I can no longer detect the intelligence that went into that creation?

Consider a man who walks by a house in the morning and sees that a window is broken. What could reasonably explain the broken window? The window could have been broken deliberately, by a kid with a pellet gun or a robber with a rock, etc. The window could also have been broken non-deliberately, by a stick or branch blown by the wind. Now, the man walks by this same house later in the afternoon and notices that the broken window has been fixed. What non-deliberate cause could explain this?

A very intelligent human could create an amorphous-looking rock, but so could a non-deliberate process. However, what non-deliberate process could create anything close to the functional level of a relatively "simple" wind-up wristwatch? - where, if one part is removed, the whole thing stops working? (No, the wristwatch argument is not dead).

In this same way, scientists think themselves able to detect the workings of intelligent human minds as well as potentially superior super-human alien intelligences. Why then is the potential for detecting intelligent activity behind the origin of life ruled out "a priori"? Isn't such an assertion, that the origin of life must have a non-intelligent cause, more of a philosophical position than a scientific position?

What happens if certain systems in living things are like fixed windows, having no reasonable non-deliberate explanation? In this regard, consider the fascinating experiments done with E. coli bacteria by Barry Hall. Hall wondered if E. coli would evolve back the lactase function (allows bacteria to use the sugar lactose for energy) if the lactase genes were deleted - and they did. With just one point mutation a brand new gene, named evolved beta-galactosidase, produced a protein with a selectable level of lactase activity. Of course, this is where most descriptions of Hall's experiments end. But, if one cares to go and read the actual papers Hall wrote, it is very interesting to note what Hall did next. Hall went on to delete the ebg gene as well as the original lactase genes to see if any other genetic sequence would evolve the lactase function - and nothing happened. Despite tens of thousands of generations of time, with a very high mutation rate, a rapid reproductive rate, and large colony sizes, the lactase function never evolved again. Frustrated, Hall referred to these double mutant bacteria as having "limited evolutionary potential".

Now, what is it that has the ability to "limit" evolutionary potential? Consider that the minimum sequence requirement to achieve a usable lactase is about 400 fairly specified amino acid residues. If a particular genome doesn't have anything within one or two steps of at least one of the lactases in sequence space, a gap is created. Each additional residue difference increases the average time to success in an exponential manner. For gaps of a few dozen residue differences, the crossing would require an average of trillions upon trillions of years of time - even for a population of bacteria the size of all bacteria on the whole Earth.

As it turns out, these gaps increase with increasing minimum sequence requirements for high-level functions. The minimum requirement for a lactase function is about 400aa, which translates into about 1,200 base pairs of genetic real estate. Compare this to the minimum requirement for the most trimmed down version of rotary flagellar motility - about 30,000 base pairs of genetic real estate.

Of course, the highly complex flagellar system of motility is supposed to have evolved by putting smaller functional subsystems together over time. However, not one of these proposed steps in the pathway toward flagellar motility has ever been demonstrated in real time. For now, all these stories of how it could have happened are "just-so stories" - not supported by scientific demonstration at all - not one step.

What can be demonstrated, in real time, is the exponential decline in evolutionary potential with each increase in the minimum size and/or specificity requirements of various types of functional systems. Evolution simply doesn't create any system of function beyond those that require a minimum of more than a few hundred fairly specified residues.

John goes on to argue that various subsystems within living things resemble each other. Therefore, the common origin of these creatures is obvious. Of course these systems have a common origin! I agree! However, their common origin is not necessarily from a common ancestor via Darwinian-style evolution. The common origin could also be common deliberate design. I mean, why invent the wheel every time a wheel is needed?

If, like the fixed window, certain systems found in living things simply go beyond what any non-deliberate process is capable of achieving this side of a practical eternity of time, what is the most reasonable solution? What potential option is there that carries the most predictive value? For the fixed window it is obviously intelligent design. What about those systems that require a minimum of more than a few hundred fairly specified residues all working together at the same time? What non-intelligent process do you have to reasonable explain the existence of such systems?

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

My Take on this Debate

by Vitali

It suprises me how those who claim that they believe that the Bible is inspired by God would even question creation. I just read an article from Signs Of The Times titled "Stonehenge Evolved"

http://www.signstimes.com/?p=article&a=40010400676.739

And not going into the debate of evolution, here is my take on it. If someone would believe that there was an inteligent designer (man) behind a rock (Stonehenge) and would not believe that there is an inteligent designer behind complex and sophisticate creature like man so that some one must be as smart as a dead rock. It's simply a degradation of society when we believe that complex (man) build simple (Stonehenge)and simple (evolution) produce complex (living creatures). In other words belief in evolution produces people no smarter then a dead rock. And that rock is like a stumbling block, they can't see because they are blind and led by blind.

Our faith is build on a Living Rock, Jesus Christ. When we compare science vs. creation you simply can't debate with evolutioinists because you deal with people who are deceived by their foolishness. EGW wrought that the "science of all sciences is the science of salvation". When you debate with the unconverted who havn't been touched with the science of salvation, they will redicule you and it will be a foolishness for them. Spiritual things are spiritually descerned. When there is a faith in God and faith that Bible is inspired by Him 100%, including the first 11 chapters, one would not even doubt God's involvement and the timing of God's creation.

There are a lot of resources on creation vs. evolution and here is what I read last...

http://www.creationists.org/downloads.html
http://www.orionfdn.org/index.htm

That's a great website with lots of resources. Also here is peronal website of Dr. Gentry where you can download videos for free.

http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm

The discovery of a fossil beaver that lived when the dinosaurs ruled the Earth could challenge some currently accepted ideas on mammal evolution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4748058.stm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0223_060223_beaver.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1654352